The request was for architectural review of the placement and screening of a generator

and two air conditioning units on the east side of the house. John Noblick represented

the property owners.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and John Noblick. Garret Moore was later sworn in.

Discussion regarding Application #08-94:

John Noblick stated that they would like to move the air conditioning units down about eighteen inches to make room for the generator. Ms. Terry stated that the applicant previously applied for a variance from the BZBA, but the application was tabled to research whether or not the generator could be placed that close to the home. She went on to say that the building department indicated that the placement defaults to the manufacturer’s recommendation. Ms. Terry explained that the applicant later withdrew the application because they were able to meet the setback requirements. Ms. Terry indicated that the unit should be screened and the applicant has already received approval for a fence along the property line. Mr. Ryan asked if the two air-conditioning units already exist on the east side of the home. Mr. Burriss asked what is proposed to be the ground cover under the generator. Mr. Noblick indicated that there will be a pad supplied by the generator manufacturer. Mr. Burriss asked what type of greenery will be around the concrete pad. Mr. Noblick said he has not been involved in this part of the project – landscaping. Ms. Reeves stated that she would think the landscaping materials used would have to be non-flammable. Mr. Burriss stated that he recently read an article that a common use is gravel and this can amplify the sound of a generator. He stated that his comments are not a condition of approval though, rather a suggestion.

Garret Moore, 207 South Pearl Street, stated that he is concerned with the proposed location of the generator. He stated that it will be placed closer to his house and approximately fifteen feet from his bedroom window. Mr. Moore stated that the generator will make too much noise. He went on to say that the homeowners do not plan to live there year round – only part time – and they won’t hear the racket as much as he will. Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. Moore lives to the east of the McDaniel’s home. Mr. Moore stated yes. Mr. Ryan clarified on the map that Mr. Moore’s residence is at least 21’ from the proposed placement of the generator. Mr. Moore concurred. Mr. Mitchell asked what kind of fence is proposed by the applicant. Ms. Terry stated it would be wood. Mr. Mitchell asked how high it would be. Mr. Moore stated six foot high. Councilmember O’Keefe asked if Mr. Moore had an alternative suggestion for placement of the generator.

Mr. Moore suggested placing the unit on the southwest corner near the garage building. Ms. Reeves asked if it needed to be located close to the house. Mr. Noblick indicated that it is cost effective to have the unit near the house. Mr. Ryan asked if the unit will run with natural gas. Mr. Noblick stated yes. Mr. Mitchell asked what type of generator it is. Mr. Noblick stated ‘Guardian.’ Mr. Mitchell asked if there is an accessory silencer kit. Mr. Noblick stated he hasn’t asked the manufacturer this question. Mr. Noblick explained that there is a voltage droppage that would occur if the unit is further away from the house. Mr. Ryan stated that if the Planning Commission were to deny the application the applicant could still use a portable generator and these tend to be noisier than the type of generator the applicant is suggesting. Mr. Moore stated that if they only use it three months of the year – he could live with that. Mr. Mitchell questioned that if the homeowner is not there then the generator unit won’t be used. Mr. Moore stated that the natural gas run generators will come on once a week automatically for a couple of minutes. Mr. Mitchell stated that it does appear to be a legitimate issue being so close to the bedroom of an existing home and it would be nice to investigate this given we have a neighbor with a concern – and what he sees as a legitimate concern. Mr. Noblick stated that they could look into placing the unit in alternative locations. Mr. Burriss stated that other than location of the generator – the noise factor is something not dealt with in the Code. Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there is anything regarding being neighborly in this regard in the Code. Assistant Law Director Crites stated that they can encourage the applicant to accommodate the request by the neighbor. Mr. Ryan stated that he is sympathetic to Mr. Moore’s concerns but they have to adhere to the Code. Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the proposed location is the only place the unit can be placed. Mr. Mitchell stated that it is the most cost effective and most efficient location. Mr. Moore stated that cost is not a factor with all the improvements that have been done to the home. Mr. Noblick asked about other homes up and down the street that do not have enough space to place a generator. He asked if a precedence was being set. Mr. Ryan and Assistant Law Director Crites stated that the Planning Commission is not a precedent setting board. Mr. Noblick later stated that if a noise muffle were available by the manufacturer he would think people would have one. Mr. Mitchell stated that it doesn’t seem as though the Planning Commission has the capability to deny this application. Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant would have to be the one to request that the application be tabled. Mr. Moore stated that if the Board has no authority to do anything he is wasting his time. Mr. Burriss stated that they (the Planning Commission) do not write the Code - the only enforce it. Mr. Moore stated that the Planning Commission allowed for a Port-A-John to be placed next to an outdoor eating area near his home. Ms. Terry clarified that the Village contacted the homeowner and it was moved within a few days. Mr. Noblick stated that he is unsure he has the authority to table the application since he is filling in for Kevin Reiner (whom submitted the application.) Mr. Burriss stated that certainly we can in good interest ask the applicant to look into muffling the generator unit. Mr. Noblick stated that he would certainly do this and he can also look at cost projections to place the unit further away from the home. It was clarified that Mr. Noblick agreed he would provide some additional information but this would not be part of the motion to approve the application. Assistant Law Director Crites added that it can be difficult to enforce the encouragement of the applicant to muffle the noise generated by the unit. Ms. Crites stated that given the additional testimony, she would like the Planning Commission to please review the criteria again.

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-94:

a) Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District. The Planning Commission concluded yes. Ms. Reeves stated that the unit will be next to two existing air-conditioning units already in place. The unit will also be screened.

b) Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that the screening provides for visual integrity.

c) Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that it contributes to the livability of the structure within the district which contributes to the vitality of the district.

The request was for architectural review and approval of storm/screen windows for all

windows on the house, except for the garage addition windows.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Linda Clark.

Discussion regarding Application #08-126:

Linda Clark, 404 West Broadway, presented a sample of the storm windows. She stated that they wanted to keep all of the old windows in the house and none of them opened. Ms. Clark stated that they had all of the windows restored and unfortunately old windows are not energy efficient and they feel they need storm and screen windows on the existing house. Mr. Mitchell stated that he has the same problem on his home. He went on to say that he is looking into getting some of the historically correct wooden storm windows, but they are expensive. Ms. Clark stated that just about every window in the house is different – some with different depths. Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission can consider if approving the application because the storm windows would be protecting the original windows and original glass. Mr. Burriss added that the applicant has done a phenomenal job on this property and it is not necessarily their fault that some of the previous remodelings have been done hit or miss. Mr. Burriss stated that we would want to be assured that the windows on the divided storm window are as consistent as can be with the divider on the existing windows. Mrs. Clark stated that she has been assured by the installer that this can happen and she would like this in writing prior to installation. Mr. Burriss asked if the screen can be removed. Mrs. Clark stated yes. Mr. Burriss stated that this a not a material that the Planning Commission has been particularly thrilled with in the past, but the owners have done a very good job on the property at restoring what they could. He also stated that this does allow for an original window to continue in use and he thinks this ought to be considered. Mrs. Clark said that she cannot find any other option to make them energy efficient. Mr. Burriss asked if the aluminum finish is a baked on finish and can it be painted? He stated that he asks this not for condition of approval, but for the applicant to know if they can ever be painted in the future. Mrs. Clark stated that she did not have this information.

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-126:

a) Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District. The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Mitchell stated that there are a lot of these type of windows in this district. Mr. Burriss stated that the house is white and the proposed windows are also white. He stated that these will stand out a little less than some others.

b) Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. The Planning Commission concluded yes. Ms. Reeves stated that this allows for the original windows to remain.

c) Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. The Planning Commission concluded yes. Ms. Reeves stated that the original windows will remain. Mr. Burriss stated that this allows the home to be more easily occupied with being energy efficient.

d) Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that this will protect and help maintain the original windows which are an architectural gem.

e) Materials and Textures: The window frames are white aluminum and any hardware needed will be painted to math the house and/or existing windows.

f) Use of Details: The applicant is proposing screen/storm windows for all windows on the house, except for the garage addition. The applicant has further indicated in their narrative statement that they are proposing the following:

a. 21 White double hung, combination storm/screens, 2 track windows that will go on all windows that open (with the exception of the new windows in the addition); and

b. 5 Storm window (white) panels will go on the windows that do not open. These are the floor to ceiling windows on the Plum Street side. Horizontal bar will line up with top of lower sash (no screens).

The supplier is National Pride Storm Windows & Doors, and Granville Lumber will supply and install the screens/storm windows. The window frames are white aluminum and any hardware needed will be painted to match the house and/or existing windows. The division of the screen/storm windows should match the division in the existing windows.

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-126 with the condition that the horizontal division in the window match the existing windows. Seconded by Mr. Burriss

The request was for architectural review of a second story dormer addition on the north

side of the home. The property is owned by Rhonda M. Aller.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Richard Nevil.

Discussion regarding Application #08-127:

Richard Nevil, 324 East Maple Street, stated that they would like to add a two foot expansion to accommodate a bathroom. He stated that they are proposing a box bay dormer that extends six inches beyond the gutter and it will perpetuate the same detailing used on the house. Mr. Nevill stated that they intend to switch from T111 to horizontal wood lap siding. Ms. Terry stated that they submitted for a variance from the Board of Building and Zoning Appeals for a side yard setback & that it was granted. She added that the applicant would also be adding a downspout. Mr. Burriss stated that one of the richest details in the house would be the cutout trim on the gable front porch. He questioned if the applicant considered reproducing this detail and using it on the dormer. Mr. Nevil indicated that he was not proposing taking it to a new level than it was before. Mr. Burriss stated that it seems to be an appropriate thought to add that level of detail since the dormer will be visible from the road and neighbors. Mr. Nevil indicated that he likes the suggestion and would consider doing this. Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant has done a lot of work to keep the dormer in style with the existing home and the proposed dormer is so close to the gable – that it seems appropriate. Mr. Ryan stated that he understands the suggestion, but it would have to be a smaller detail than what is on the gable. Mr. Burriss stated that the bracket supporting the dormer has rich detail too. Mr. Burriss stated that he would be willing to approve with the condition that the gable bracketing detailing be submitted to Village staff prior to installation. Mr. Nevil stated that he would provide this information if he can find it. Mr. Nevil indicated that he could do something at the top of the dormer to add the detailing in. Mr. Nevil stated that as for the brackets, he hopes to use a Fypon bracket. Mr. Burriss asked if the underside of the overhang will have detailing. Mr. Nevil stated that this will be plywood paneled a couple of times to pick up where the brackets are placed. Mr. Burriss asked what is the current detail of the porch ceilings. Mr. Nevil stated that it is a beaded board.

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-127:

a) Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District. The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed changes will make it more cohesive and historically whole to the rest of the home.

b) Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that by restoring the architectural detail – it makes the dormer consistent with the rest of the home.

c) Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that it is enhancing by bringing the entire structure into a consistency of appropriate detailing.

d) Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that it enhances by bringing the entire structure into a consistency of appropriate detailing.

e) Roof Shape: The roof shape will remain the same pitch, it will just be enlarged to accommodate the additional space within the second story dormer area.

f) Materials and Texture: The applicant is proposing the following materials:

1. The dormer has T1.11 plywood siding on it now. With the proposed renovation the applicant will be replacing the siding on the dormer addition with wood lap siding to match the rest of the house, along with 5/4 x 4 wood corner trim;

2. Existing louvered wood shutters will be replaced with similar new wood louvered shutter to fit the new window;

3. Existing roof shingles are brown fiberglass and the dormer will be re-shingled to match;

4. Roof trim will match the existing roof trim;

5. A new downspout will be installed at the front of the house with the dormer addition, 3" x 4" aluminum, pre-finished white;

6. Below the box bay of the dormer 2 decorative brackets will be installed, as is traditional. The decorative brackets will be either resin reproduction or salvage wood brackets - Victorian in style.

7. New window, if needed, will be wood frame painted to match the existing windows.

g) Use of Details: The applicant is attempting to reproduce details on the proposed addition that are consistent with the Victorian style – decorative brackets below the box bay of the dormer; consistent louvered shutters; wood frame windows; wood lap siding, etc.

Mr. Mitchell made a motion that Application #08-127 be approved on the condition that:

-There will be two not three decorative brackets under the extended dormer;

-There will be gable trim added to the addition to be reviewed by staff; and

-The type and style of the brackets shall be per Exhibit “A” or salvaged brackets.

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan. Motion carried 4-0.

Application #08-127 is approved as submitted with the above listed conditions.

Other Business:

Informal Discussion regarding changes to existing Billboard Signage, submitted by Barnes Advertising for their property located on Lot 8 of Westgate Drive. The property is zoned Community Service District (CSD). Chad DeMatti and Joe Panzica represented Barnes Advertising.

Informal Discussion regarding replacement of windows and exterior modifications to the rear of the structure, for the property owned by Sabato Sagaria located at 117 South Prospect Street. The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

Old Business:

Note: This agenda item is open to the public and is a public hearing. All individuals are permitted to speak regarding the review of the proposed Zoning Code revisions.

Mr. Burriss made a motion to send the proposed Zoning Code revisions to Council with their recommendations. Seconed by Ms. Reeves.

Roll Call: Mitchell, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan. Motion carried 4-0.

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #08-94:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-94 with the following conditions:

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and hereby gives their approval of the application, as indicated below:

-To approve Application #08-126 with the condition that the horizontal divisions in the new windows match the existing.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-126. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan. Motion carried 4-0.

Application #08-127:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-127, with the following conditions:

-There will be two, not three, decorative brackets under the box bay extended dormer;

-There will be gable trim added to the addition to be reviewed by Village staff;

-And the type and style of the brackets shall be per Exhibit “A” or salvaged brackets.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-127. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan. Motion carried 4-0.

Approval of the Minutes:

September 22, 2008

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the September 22, 2008 minutes as presented. Seconded by Ms. Reeves. Motion carried 4-0.

Mr. Burriss asked that issues surrounding the use of generators be addressed by Council. Councilmember O’Keefe indicated that she would relay this to Council.